Re: [MUD-Dev] Life

[Jeff Kesselman <jeffk#tenetwork,com>]

At 10:48 PM 6/2/97 PST8PDT, you wrote:
>The problem I have with it is that Adam's entire notion of conflict
>seemed to be fighting to the death, and no matter how it happens it's
>just part of the game and shouldn't upset anyone. My point is that there
>are a LOT of types of conflict, and death is not the only possible
>result. There is a lot more enjoyment to be gained from starting a
>long-term grudge and enmity than there is to be gained from 'Ugh! You
>die now!' *THUMP*

Heh.  I hear echos of my "caveman roleplay" formulation here.
I ofcourse agree with you.

n that  I don't belief this justice should be drawn out. If a
>>player does something grossly unacceptable  then his character must
>>be deleted. I know from personal experience that watching your tor-
>>mentor suffer is satisfying but it left a bad taste all the same.
>
>Deleting the character would have been unconscionable. in-game actions,
>in-game consequences -- 

Hmm.. I've heard this postualte before but I've never heard a good
justificatio nfor ity, so here I disagree.  A judge who has a problematic
player in his game, who remains a problem over a reasonable epriod of time,
he just throws out.  


>It's worth noting that he did go off and complain to staff about it, and
>after some discussion of the matter, the staff member who had backed up
>his murder of the child was dismissed from service and the player was
>given some very pointed education on the subject of justifiable actions
>in a roleplay setting. The matter was handled both in and out of game
>context. 

And I find thsi perfectly appropriate and concienable.
In fact, I see a fundemental problem with the ingame doctrine. SOME abusive
players are there just to get some attention and ANYTHING yo udo in-game in
response feeds the behavior.

>
>The in-game handling provided several of the more outraged players with
>some sort of satisfaction, including the player of the child, who

This is a different, and reasonable, goal.  The only problem here is when
the goal of the world is NOT game-oriented play but the abusive players ARE
game-oriented players. It ends up FORCING those others into GOP in order to
have the pwoer to deal with the assholes.  Something i do NOt consider
reasonable given the aforestated goals.

JK